1995 (12) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether M/s. Unifab Engineers is a dummy firm of the appellant, M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Private Limited.
2. Whether the clearances made by M/s. Unifab Engineers should be clubbed with those of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers for the purpose of availing duty exemption under certain notifications.
3. Whether the demand of Central Excise duty and the imposition of penalty on the appellant are justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether M/s. Unifab Engineers is a dummy firm of the appellant, M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Private Limited:

The department alleged that M/s. Unifab Engineers had no separate entity and was merely a dummy firm floated by M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Private Limited to evade payment of excise duty. The evidence supporting this included:
- The management of M/s. Unifab Engineers was controlled by the appellant through the wives of their Directors and employees, who were housewives.
- The appellant supplied plant, machinery, and raw materials free of cost to M/s. Unifab Engineers and paid them labor charges for manufacturing Perma Towers.
- The appellant controlled the production, sale, and financial transactions of M/s. Unifab Engineers, including paying their rent and income tax.

The appellant denied these allegations, asserting that M/s. Unifab Engineers was an independent partnership firm with its own legal entity, separate from M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers. They argued that the partners of M/s. Unifab Engineers, although related to the directors of the appellant company, managed the firm independently and had their own separate registrations and licenses.

However, the adjudicating authority found that the partnership firm was reconstituted multiple times with partners who were either family members or wives of the appellant's employees, without any significant capital investment from the new partners. The cumulative effect of these circumstances led to the conclusion that M/s. Unifab Engineers was indeed a dummy firm of the appellant.

2. Whether the clearances made by M/s. Unifab Engineers should be clubbed with those of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers for the purpose of availing duty exemption under certain notifications:

The department contended that since M/s. Unifab Engineers was a dummy firm, the value of clearances of both firms should be clubbed together, making them ineligible for duty exemption under Notifications Nos. 77/83, 77/85, and 175/86. The appellant argued that M/s. Unifab Engineers was an independent entity and thus entitled to separate exemption benefits.

The adjudicating authority, after considering the evidence, found that M/s. Unifab Engineers was not an independent entity but a dummy firm controlled by the appellant. Therefore, the clearances made by M/s. Unifab Engineers were for and on behalf of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers, and the value of clearances should be clubbed together, making them ineligible for the exemption benefits.

3. Whether the demand of Central Excise duty and the imposition of penalty on the appellant are justified:

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,23,006.00 for the financial year 1984-85 and Rs. 2,03,970.50 for the financial year 1985-86, along with a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant argued that they were not liable for the duty as M/s. Unifab Engineers was an independent manufacturer.

However, based on the findings that M/s. Unifab Engineers was a dummy firm and the clearances were made on behalf of the appellant, the adjudicating authority's decision to demand the duty and impose the penalty was upheld. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, confirming the duty demand and penalty.

Conclusion:

The judgment concluded that M/s. Unifab Engineers was a dummy firm of M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Private Limited, and the clearances made by M/s. Unifab Engineers should be clubbed with those of the appellant for the purpose of duty exemption. The demand of Central Excise duty and the imposition of penalty on the appellant were justified, and the appeal was dismissed.